Coercive recovery stayed pending adjudication of Section 9 objections under Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act.

The eight petitioners were paid compensation in 2022 for land acquisition related to National Highway project-527(C) in Sitamarhi.

Subsequently, their zamabandi (land records) were cancelled and a new zamabandi was opened in favor of Respondent No. 5.

Consequently, the District Land Acquisition Officer issued notices dated 19.12.2022 and 23.01.2023 demanding the return of the compensation.

Upon non-payment, the District Certificate Officer issued certificates on 19.07.2023 under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, to recover the amounts as public demands.

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash these notices and recovery proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to contest the recovery certificates by filing statutory objections before the Certificate Officer.

2. Whether coercive action for recovery should be stayed pending the adjudication of such objections.

Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, specifically Section 9, which allows a certificate-debtor to file a petition denying liability after the service of notice under Section 7.

Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which mandates the Certificate Officer to determine the petition and settle the liability after hearing the parties.

Principles of natural justice regarding fair opportunity of hearing.

The Court did not adjudicate the case on its merits but focused on the procedural rights of the petitioners under the Public Demands Recovery Act.

Given the petitioners' request to file fresh objections and the respondents' lack of objection to such a course, the Court determined that the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute over the compensation amount was the Certificate Officer.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners' right to property and the legality of the zamabandi cancellation were at the heart of the recovery, a full hearing under Section 10—including notice to the rival claimant (Respondent No. 5)—was necessary to ensure a lawful determination of the debt.

The Court directed Respondent No. 4 (District Certificate Officer) to pass a speaking order under Section 10 after hearing all parties, including Respondent No. 5, within three months.

The Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners until the final order is passed by the Certificate Officer.